Nakhla Adimi – Call of the Nation
At a delicate regional moment in which transformations intersect from South Asia to the Eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon appears to be standing once again on the threshold of a turning point, amid growing talk about a settlement and ideas cooking behind the scenes. This settlement, if it matures, is inseparable from the rearrangement of broader international priorities, in light of what influential capitals are witnessing, including what is happening in Islamabad on the lines of the United States and Iran.
In parallel, time is getting shorter and shorter before the expected date for the invitation expected to be sent by US President Donald Trump to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to visit Washington, where he plans to bring him together in the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This matter adds a sense of urgency to the search for a solution that must be achieved before the visit through direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, especially since such a visit, in isolation from the meeting with Netanyahu, must put on the table the vision of an implementable solution. Note that informed circles indicate that Aoun is not currently in the mood to meet Netanyahu.
In the line of solutions being marketed, “Call of the Nation” learned from Arab diplomatic sources that a package of ideas is being discussed starting with the reactivation of Resolution 1701 and the “Taif Agreement,” not only as reference texts, but as an updated framework for managing internal balance and controlling the southern border. However, these proposals do not enjoy complete consensus, as some parties believe that developing the tasks of international forces to include a multinational force faces political and field obstacles, while others prefer to limit themselves to strengthening existing mechanisms rather than replacing them.
As for the border situation, according to diplomatic sources, scenarios range between a gradual Israeli withdrawal from some points, in exchange for new security arrangements that may include international supervision, and more cautious approaches that focus on creating buffer zones or unilateral arrangements.
In the political dimension, talk of a possible regional role is emerging again, especially through an Iranian-Saudi intersection to foster an umbrella of internal understanding. However, this proposal is countered by another opinion, which considers that the settlement path is moving more towards direct international sponsorship, specifically American, with a relative reduction in the role of traditional regional powers.
The most sensitive node in any discussion about the solution remains the fate of Hezbollah’s weapons. Here, the proposals differ clearly between those who push for a gradual handover of weapons to the state as a condition for stability and international support, and those who propose the idea of integration within a national defense strategy, or even maintaining it within a temporary “containment” formula. A less widely discussed proposal also appears in some analyses, which talks about linking this file to broader regional understandings, which directly include Iran. This discrepancy reflects the extent of the complexity that makes this file the key to any settlement, and its main obstacle at the same time.
Economically, there is frequent talk about reconstruction with funding from multiple sources, and this matter is directly related to the final solution.
In this context, proposals are also emerging to strengthen border control through advanced control points at land, air and sea crossings, under international supervision, as part of the path to restoring international confidence.
Despite the coherence of these ideas within an integrated vision, most estimates agree that what has been proposed so far is still within the framework of “scenarios,” not the final plan. The discrepancies between international and regional powers, in addition to the internal Lebanese complexities, make it difficult to decide the direction quickly.
Even the Israeli side will not accept any solution that does not secure the northern borders, and withdrawal from the yellow line towards the borders will only take place within the framework of a comprehensive solution that ends with the signing of a peace agreement with Lebanon.
Accordingly, the picture appears to be open to three paths: a comprehensive but complex settlement, a temporary solution that focuses on security aspects, or the continuation of the status quo and escalation of the situation leading to a resolution on the ground. Among these possibilities, the decisive factor remains the ability of Lebanon itself to interact with these proposals, and to withstand expectations of an increase in the level of Hezbollah’s provocation of other Lebanese components within the framework of internal pressure after the major losses it suffered in the face of the Israeli army.
In conclusion, it does not seem that the solution has matured yet, but what is certain is that the discussion about it has actually begun, and that what is being hatched behind the scenes today may shape the features of the next stage, whether that is through a major settlement or through long-term management of the crisis.
